This study examined adult drug treatment courts. Drug treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-involved offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts provide a connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems by combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. Researchers collected data between February 2001 and May 2002 on drug court participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California, Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December 2000. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, contains data collected from observations of treatment sessions at each site from May through July 2001. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, provides data obtained through surveys of 54 treatment service staff members.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991 Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort, Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare. Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication, followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him, whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6 (Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life, lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted, anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed, rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends, ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction, disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges, individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation, drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he was on time for his job, whether he had new

The goal for this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, called the Genesis program, at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (SNMCD) by examining the program's structure and assessing its intermediate impact upon participating inmates. The study focuses on answering three research questions: (1) Who were the program participants? (2) What were the characteristics of the program? (3) Was the program reaching the most appropriate offenders, or were its participants primarily offenders who were not likely to become recidivists? The study contains information on every inmate who entered the Genesis program from July 31, 1997, to July 31, 1998. For evaluation purposes, the researchers designed their own data collection form which they used to collect relevant information from each participant's treatment program file. Each participant's file was maintained by Genesis program staff and was kept for the duration each inmate was in the program. From each program participant at intake, using the data collection instrument, the researchers collected demographic information, substance abuse history, and criminal history. The data are provided in two parts. Both parts are from the same data collection instrument. Part 1 covers Questions 1 through 15 of the data collection instrument, while Part 2 covers Questions 16 through 34 of the data collection instrument. Part 1 includes demographic variables about the inmate such as birth date, age, ethnicity, citizenship, years of education, prior employment status, longest employment, and average weekly income. It also includes incarceration information such as confinement date, length of current sentence, RSAT admission date, and expected parole date, and criminal history information such as age at first adult arrest, number of juvenile arrests, number of adult arrests, date of first adult arrest, date of last adult arrest, and number of years served in prison. There are also variables to address the inmate's drug use history as a juvenile and as an adult. Part 2 continues with the drug use history of the inmate as an adult with information about drugs used by IV injection, number of alcohol withdrawals, number of drug overdoses, number of detoxes, inpatient treatment received, outpatient treatment received, average amount of money spent on drugs, percentage of income spent on drugs, number of family members who use alcohol or drugs, and how they were related to the inmate. In addition, the file contains demographic information, such as current marital status and number of children, and the inmate's psychological history including depression, anxiety, anger, trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering, attempted suicide, prescribed medication, and hospitalization. Criminal career variables include length of criminal career, all past charges, weapons used during any crime, number of times a weapon was used, and total number of convictions.

This study was an outcome evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program at the Barnstable House of Corrections in Massachusetts. The study is based on the 188 inmates referred to the RSAT program at Barnstable between January 1, 1999, and June 6, 2001. Data on participants' criminal histories were gathered from the Criminal History Systems Board through March 2002. Data on offender age, entry, and discharge dates were supplied by the Barnstable County House of Corrections. Data from offender scores on psychological inventories and offender outcomes in the RSAT program were supplied by AdCare Criminal Justice Services.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the New York City Department of Probation's initiative to place clients in specialized Substance Abuse Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) units for treatment and management. The main analytical strategy of this study was to determine whether clients who were appropriately matched to outpatient drug treatment were less likely to recidivate after treatment in this modality. The focus of the research was not so much on developing powerful prediction models, but rather on determining whether outpatient drug treatment was appropriate and effective for certain types of probationers. The evaluation research involved an in-depth analysis of a sample of 1,860 probationers who were sentenced between September 1991-September 1992 and referred to contracting outpatient drug treatment programs one or more times as of December 31, 1993. The following types of data were collected: (1) the New York City Department of Probation's demographic and drug use information, obtained during the presentence investigation and at intake to probation, (2) the Department of Probation's Central Placement Unit (CPU) database records for each referral made through the CPU, as well as monthly progress reports filled out by the treatment programs on each probationer admitted to drug treatment, (3) the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Statistics' data on criminal histories, and (4) probation officers' reports on whether clients were referred to treatment, the kind of treatment modality to which they were referred, and the dates of admission and discharge. Demographic and socioeconomic variables include age at first arrest and sentencing, gender, race or ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational attainment, and employment status. Other variables include drug use history (e.g., age at which drugs were first used, if the client's family members used drugs, if the client was actively using heroin, cocaine, or alcohol at time of intake into treatment), criminal history (e.g., age at first arrest, number of arrests, types of crimes, prior convictions, and prior probation and jail sentences), and drug treatment history (e.g., number and types of prior times in drug treatment, months since last treatment program, number of admissions to a CPU program, and number of AIDS education programs attended).

This study was an outcome evaluation of the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC), a six-month residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) facility in Dallas County, Texas. The primary goal of this evaluation was to assess offender recidivism following treatment in this six-month community-based modified therapeutic community for probationers. Secondary goals were to examine change in social functioning over time among probationers mandated to this program, to determine which characteristics at intake and which during-treatment social functioning indicators were predictive of dropping out of treatment early, and to identify which indicators predicted being arrested one to two years after treatment. These goals were accomplished by a comparison of outcomes between treated probationers and an untreated comparison group and by an assessment of the relationships among treatment, social functioning, and recidivism. For both treatment and comparison groups, a criminal records search was performed on the Institutional Division database of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for all of the study participants for the two years following discharge for treatment or following commitment to probation. In addition to these records, treatment participants were asked to complete a set of data collection forms over their course of treatment. These forms collected information about mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, substance abuse, psychological status, offenders' perceptions of the program and their experiences in treatment, evaluations of counselors, self-evaluations, and counselors' evaluations of clients.

These data were collected to measure the degree to which subjective deterrence and rational choice are effective in reducing drug-use recidivism rates. Baseline interviews were conducted with participants upon entering a drug rehabilitation program in New Jersey. Under the terms of this program, which was an alternative to prison, any incident of drug use occurring during the rehabilitation period would result in the participant's returning to prison. Follow-up interviews were conducted when the participant either had a drug/alcohol use relapse or successfully completed a year in the program without a drug-use incident. Baseline interviews included questions about criminal and drug-use history, as well as initial reactions to the drug rehabilitation program. Follow-up interviews probed for participants' feelings about the drug rehabilitation program experience. Further questions concerned participants' failure or success at staying away from drugs or alcohol.

This study examined the relationship between legal pressure and drug treatment retention by assessing perceptions of legal pressure held by two groups of legally-mandated treatment clients: (1) participants of the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program operated by the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney in New York City, and (2) a matched group of probationers, parolees, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) participants, and other court-mandated offenders attending the same community-based treatment programs used by DTAP. The Brooklyn DTAP was selected for study because of the program's uniquely coercive program components, including the threat of a mandatory prison term for noncompliance. The goals of this project were (1) to test whether DTAP participants would show significantly higher retention rates when compared to a matched sample of other legally-mandated treatment clients, and (2) to assess the role of perceived legal pressure in predicting retention for both of these groups. Data were collected from program participants through interviews conducted at admission to treatment and follow-up interviews conducted about eight weeks later. Intake interviews were conducted, on average, one week after the client's admission to treatment. The one-to-one interviews, which lasted up to two hours, were administered by trained researchers in a private location at the treatment site. The intake interview battery included a mixture of standardized measures and those developed by the Vera Institute of Justice. Data in Part 1 were collected with the Addiction Severity Index and include age, sex, race, religion, and education. Additional variables cover medical problems, employment history, detailed substance abuse and treatment history, number of times arrested for various crimes, history of incarceration, family's substance abuse and criminal histories, relationships with family and friends, psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicide, current living arrangements, and sources of income. Part 2, Supplemental Background and Retention Data, contains treatment entry date, number of days in treatment, age at treatment entry, termination date, treatment condition, arrest date, detention at arrest, date released on probation/parole, violation of probation/parole arrest date and location, problem drug, prior drug treatment, as well as age, gender, race, education, and marital status. Part 3, Division of Criminal Justice Services Data, includes data on the number of arrests before and after program entry, and number of total misdemeanor and felony arrests, convictions, and sentences. Part 4, Chemical Use, Abuse, and Dependence Data, contains information on type of substance abuse, intoxication or withdrawal at work, school, or home, effects of abuse on social, occupational, or recreational activities, and effects of abuse on relationships, health, emotions, and employment. Parts 5 and 6 contain psychiatric data gathered from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised and Beck's Depression Inventory, respectively. Part 7 variables from the Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness, and Suitability scale include family's attitude toward treatment, subject's need for treatment, subject's desire to change life, and legal consequences if subject did not participate in treatment. Part 8, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness scale, contains data on how the subject viewed the drug problem, desire to change, and history of dealing with substance abuse. Part 9, Motivational/Program Supplement Data, includes variables on the subject's need for treatment, attitudes toward treatment sessions, the family's reaction to treatment, and a likelihood of completion rating. Part 10, Perceived Legal Coercion Data, gathered information on who referred the subject to the treatment program, who was keeping track of attendance, whether someone explained the rules of participation in the program and the consequences if the

This study was a process evaluation of the Michigan Department of Corrections' (MDOC) residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The 272-bed program was designed to treat male, minimum-custody inmates with a history of serious chemical dependency. The phase of treatment at the Jackson Cooper Street facility lasted six months, and was followed by a 12-month aftercare component. The main theory of change behind the program was that education about drugs and their physical, familial, and social effects, coupled with opportunities to learn about recovery and identify triggers for substance use, would help substance-abusing offenders to avoid both substance abuse and criminal behaviors once released into the community. This study used multiple data sources. Part 1, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Data, was acquired from the MDOC's Correctional Management Information System, which included demographic, criminal history, programming, and institutional misconduct information for a snapshot of the entire inmate population. These data provided information on all 44,061 inmates in the custody of MDOC on July 1, 1999. Part 2, RSAT Applications data, contains data for the 834 applications received by August 30, 1999. These data were received from University of Michigan (UM) researchers studying the long-term impact of the RSAT program on offender substance abuse and recidivism. The data were collected using a screening form for each application, and were initially generated and entered into an electronic format by RSAT program staff. Part 3, Service Tracking Data, contains RSAT admission and parole data, which were manually collected.

This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the structured substance abuse treatment program at Barrett Juvenile Correction Center in Virginia by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but who differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment, focused on modifying negative attitudes and behaviors, they completed. Barrett differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered some treatment programs but only on an "as needed" basis. The sample for this study consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on youths' treatment progress at the time of discharge. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youths. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police supplied additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Parole officers also provided data on recidivism and on progress toward meeting the conditions of parole. Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.